Why Did Ukraine Form an Independent Identity? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Early modern era & beginning of the modern era. Exploration, enlightenment, industrialisation, colonisation & empire (1492 - 1914 CE).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14720068
Ukraine is a fascinating country and Ukrainian identity is very complex.

It was part of Kievan Rus until the confederation of principalities collapsed. It then was a kingdom (the Kingdom of Galicia Volyhnia) and was heavily influenced by the Latin European world, including Poland. They were an East Slavic people who were in contact with Latin Catholic civilisation.

Eventually Galicia Volhynia was absorbed into the Polish kingdom but later emerged in the 1600s in the form of the Cossack Hetmanate.

When Muscovy began expanding and creating the modern Russian state it encountered very little resistance from Novgorod, Pskov and others. However Ukraine was never fully assimilated and the Ukrainian identity remains strong even to this day.

Why out of all the former constituent principalities of Kievan Rus did the land that is now Ukraine develop such a strong and independent identity? Why did Novgorod not develop a similar identity and why was it so easily absorbed by Muscovy?
#15299544
Russia was united rather late in history.

What is now Ukraine can be seen as more like the heart of "Russian" civilization at the earliest period in Russian history.

The rest of Russia was more like at the fringes of civilization, in colder more sparsely populated areas.

But at some point Moscow developed and became a powerful focal point.

Another reason that Ukraine did not develop to become the heart of Russia was that the southern part of what is today Ukraine was under the control or influence of other empires, the Byzantines, and then the Turks. And besides that they were ethnically Cossacks, not Russian slavs.

The kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia can be seen as an early precursor to the later "Russian" nation, in which Kiev and Muscovy were united, but this shattered from the Mongol invasions beginning in 1236.

In 1328, Moscovy first began to expand. By 1464 it was a moderately powerful kingdom, but was still in the north, a distance away from the present borders of Ukraine. In 1472 Moscovy began to conquer the north. Novgorod was captured in 1478.
By 1478 they controlled the area that is today Saint Petersburg (though a city did not exist there at the time). In 1487 they conquered the nearby Kazan Khanate to their east, ruled by Central Asian Turkic peoples, as well as the smaller Quasim Khanate to their south. Still had not entered the sphere of Ukraine yet. Only by 1503 had they entered what is now the north of Ukraine. By 1518 they controlled the heart of Ukraine.

Kiev was finally conquered by Lithuania in 1363. Lithuania controlled most of Ukraine by 1399. It was then not long after that Lithuania and all its territory became, in 1569, absorbed into the Polish-Lithuanian union, in which Poland dominated.

Historically the western half of Ukraine was once controlled by Poland for over 350 years, before it later completely fell under the Russian Empire. The Ukrainian territory was divided between Pland and Russia from the mid-1600s to 1792. This was during a critical period of national identity development, which explains why Ukraine did not develop a Russian identity. In fact Ukraine never really developed a national identity in the same sense as other nations.

Although there is a trend of Latin countries using Latin script whereas slavic countries use Cyrillic, the slavic nation of Poland was an exception, using Latin script due to a close connection with the Roman Catholic Church. In part that was due to a connection to Holy Roman Empire and the Kingdom of Bohemia (which was also more of a slavic nation, but was German controlled). That meant that the western half of Ukraine ended up using a different script in their writing from Russia, which probably played some small part in contributing to the cultural divide.

Although Russians and Ukrainians are very similar, during Soviet rule under Stalin Russia attempted to make Ukraine more Russian, permanently settling Russian migrants in Ukraine, and targeting the Ukrainian people with planned starvation, in which millions were killed. Ukrainians were seen as a threat to Communism because they had a strong land-owning middle class, attachment to religious beliefs, rejected of state atheism, and had a different ethnic identity, which was not seen as conducive to unification. Obviously this history has led to some lasting resentment against Russia.
Last edited by Puffer Fish on 25 Dec 2023 03:01, edited 7 times in total.
#15299548
Puffer Fish wrote:Russia was united rather late in history.

What is now Ukraine can be seen as more like the heart of "Russian" civilization at the earliest period in Russian history.

The rest of Russia was more like at the fringes of civilization, in colder more sparsely populated areas.

But at some point Moscow developed and became a powerful focal point.

Another reason that Ukraine did not develop to become the heart of Russia was that the southern part of what is today Ukraine was under the control or influence of other empires, the Byzantines, and then the Turks. And besides that they were ethnically Cossacks, not Russian slavs.

In 1328, Moscovy first began to expand. By 1464 is was a moderately powerful kingdom, but was still in the north, a distance away from the present borders of Ukraine. In 1472 Moscovy began to conquer the north. By 1478 they controlled the area that is today Saint Petersburg (though a city did not exist there at the time). In 1487 they conquered the nearby Kazan Khanate to their east, ruled by Central Asian Turkic peoples, as well as the smaller Quasim Khanate to their south. Still had not entered the sphere of Ukraine yet. Only by 1503 had they entered what is now the north of Ukraine. By 1518 they controlled the heart of Ukraine.

Historically the western half of Ukraine was once controlled by Poland, before it later completely fell under the Russian Empire.

Although there is a trend of Latin countries using Latin script whereas slavic countries use Cyrillic, the slavic nation of Poland was an exception, using Latin script due to a close connection with the Roman Catholic Church. In part that was due to a connection to Holy Roman Empire and the Kingdom of Bohemia (which was also more of a slavic nation, but was German controlled). That meant that the western half of Ukraine ended up using a different script in their writing from Russia, which probably played some small part in contributing to the cultural divide.

Although Russians and Ukrainians are very similar, during Soviet rule under Stalin Russia attempted to make Ukraine more russian, permanently settling Russian migrants in Ukraine, and targeting the Ukrainian people with planned starvation, in which millions were killed. Ukrainians were seen as a threat to Communism because they had a strong land-owning middle class, attachment to religious beliefs, rejected of state atheism, and had a different ethnic identity, which was not seen as conducive to unification. Obviously this history has led to some lasting resentment against Russia.

What the fuck…? :eh:

Image
#15299550
Political Interest wrote:Why out of all the former constituent principalities of Kievan Rus did the land that is now Ukraine develop such a strong and independent identity? Why did Novgorod not develop a similar identity and why was it so easily absorbed by Muscovy?

To answer your question, when Muscovy king Ivan III conquered Novgorod, Kiev was already under the control of Lithuania.

Kiev was captured by Lithuania in 1362. Novgorod was captured by Ivan III in 1478.
It would not be until 1503-1518 that Muscovy took Kiev, but they did not hold western half of Ukraine, and did not hold Kiev for very long, but continued to hold the eastern 40 percent of Ukraine.

I'd also argue that Kiev, being further south, began developing earlier, had more population.

Russia was able to get Kiev in 1667 after the conclusion of the Russo-Polish War (1654-1667) after Poland was financially weakened from its long fight in the "Northern wars" (1655–1660) with Sweden. This marked the rise of Russia as a European power.

The Ottomans (Muslim) controlled the southern third of Ukraine after 1667, although the Crimean Khanate (Muslim) had controlled a smaller sliver of territory along the coast from the 1520s.
#15299558
Puffer Fish wrote:To answer your question, when Muscovy king Ivan III conquered Novgorod, Kiev was already under the control of Lithuania.

Kiev was captured by Lithuania in 1362. Novgorod was captured by Ivan III in 1478.
It would not be until 1503-1518 that Muscovy took Kiev, but they did not hold western half of Ukraine, and did not hold Kiev for very long, but continued to hold the eastern 40 percent of Ukraine.

I'd also argue that Kiev, being further south, began developing earlier, had more population.

Russia was able to get Kiev in 1667 after the conclusion of the Russo-Polish War (1654-1667) after Poland was financially weakened from its long fight in the "Northern wars" (1655–1660) with Sweden. This marked the rise of Russia as a European power.

The Ottomans (Muslim) controlled the southern third of Ukraine after 1667, although the Crimean Khanate (Muslim) had controlled a smaller sliver of territory along the coast from the 1520s.

Ukraine was never able to establish itself as a sovereign, independent nation throughout all of this history - it was just surrounded by too many hostile, powerful neighbours. Even Khmelnitski was reduced to simply choosing which neighbouring empire to sell Ukraine to for protection from its other enemies. Muscovy on the other hand, being on the periphery of, well, pretty much everywhere, was able to retain sovereignty once it had shaken off the dead hand of the Mongol Empire. While it started off weaker and with less population than Ukraine, this independent sovereignty gave it the edge in the long term - it slowly, slowly gobbled up everything around it and then absorbed Ukraine. In the minds of the Muscovites, they were simply reuniting the scattered peoples of Kievan Rus. They were restoring Kievan Rus, something the Ukrainians had been incapable of doing (for good historical reasons, of course). But Ukraine (or a large chunk of it anyway) now wants to be its own independent nation-state, aligned with what Russia sees as its enemies. This is the problem.
#15299582
Puffer Fish wrote:Russia was united rather late in history.

What is now Ukraine can be seen as more like the heart of "Russian" civilization at the earliest period in Russian history.

The rest of Russia was more like at the fringes of civilization, in colder more sparsely populated areas.

But at some point Moscow developed and became a powerful focal point.

Another reason that Ukraine did not develop to become the heart of Russia was that the southern part of what is today Ukraine was under the control or influence of other empires, the Byzantines, and then the Turks. And besides that they were ethnically Cossacks, not Russian slavs.

The kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia can be seen as an early precursor to the later "Russian" nation, in which Kiev and Muscovy were united, but this shattered from the Mongol invasions beginning in 1236.

In 1328, Moscovy first began to expand. By 1464 it was a moderately powerful kingdom, but was still in the north, a distance away from the present borders of Ukraine. In 1472 Moscovy began to conquer the north. Novgorod was captured in 1478.
By 1478 they controlled the area that is today Saint Petersburg (though a city did not exist there at the time). In 1487 they conquered the nearby Kazan Khanate to their east, ruled by Central Asian Turkic peoples, as well as the smaller Quasim Khanate to their south. Still had not entered the sphere of Ukraine yet. Only by 1503 had they entered what is now the north of Ukraine. By 1518 they controlled the heart of Ukraine.

Kiev was finally conquered by Lithuania in 1363. Lithuania controlled most of Ukraine by 1399. It was then not long after that Lithuania and all its territory became, in 1569, absorbed into the Polish-Lithuanian union, in which Poland dominated.

Historically the western half of Ukraine was once controlled by Poland for over 350 years, before it later completely fell under the Russian Empire. The Ukrainian territory was divided between Pland and Russia from the mid-1600s to 1792. This was during a critical period of national identity development, which explains why Ukraine did not develop a Russian identity. In fact Ukraine never really developed a national identity in the same sense as other nations.

Although there is a trend of Latin countries using Latin script whereas slavic countries use Cyrillic, the slavic nation of Poland was an exception, using Latin script due to a close connection with the Roman Catholic Church. In part that was due to a connection to Holy Roman Empire and the Kingdom of Bohemia (which was also more of a slavic nation, but was German controlled). That meant that the western half of Ukraine ended up using a different script in their writing from Russia, which probably played some small part in contributing to the cultural divide.

Although Russians and Ukrainians are very similar, during Soviet rule under Stalin Russia attempted to make Ukraine more Russian, permanently settling Russian migrants in Ukraine, and targeting the Ukrainian people with planned starvation, in which millions were killed. Ukrainians were seen as a threat to Communism because they had a strong land-owning middle class, attachment to religious beliefs, rejected of state atheism, and had a different ethnic identity, which was not seen as conducive to unification. Obviously this history has led to some lasting resentment against Russia.


Russia is complicated but you get a lot of stuff wrong. The different Slavic kingdoms existed way before even Rurikids conquered the lands from Novgorod to Kiev. Second of all, before the Mongols, Rurikids were pretty advanced for the time compared to rest of Europe due to Vikings and Byzantine influence. Not as advanced as Byzantinians ofcourse but they were pretty okay. The Mongols put an end to that for couple of centuries.

Mongole Yoke destroyed and created a decline in Slavic cities since Mongols had a habbit to burn shit down when it rebelled. Although Novgorod and Moscow made a deal with the Mongols and were spared to a degree. After sucking Mongol cock for 2 centuries they managed to free themselves when the Mongols were basically falling apart. After that the situation returned to the different independent Slavic kingdoms/princes. Since Moscow/Novgorod were the strongest they managed to attack and defeat the rest over time of centuries. Their geographical position also was useful since there was nobody really around who could challenge their expansion until Sweden and Poland I guess.

The reason Why Ukraine has an independent identity is because it has historically had independent identity but not in the current understanding. The different Slavic princes have always existed over time and the only reason Russia even existed is because Moscow/Novgorod managed to militarily subjugate everyone after the Mongol Yoke.

You should put the full quote I am of the o[…]

Muscovite’s Slaughter of Indigenous People in Alas[…]

Any of you going to buy the Trump bible he's prom[…]

No, it doesn't. The US also wants to see Hamas top[…]